[schulken]

---

ACBL. Club game. Matchpoints.

Before you conclude E is completely daft, consider that the following is the hand she was looking at, selected from the previous board.

---

I was called to the table after S passed, ending the auction and E realized that she had the wrong cards. I instructed the players to score the board using the table result.

L17D allows for the canceling of a call on cards picked up from a wrong board and for the player to make a call from the correct hand. L17D does not address what to do if the auction has ended. Under L17D, once the offender changes his call, the director shall award an artificial adjusted score. There was nothing to be gained by reopening the auction since there would be no point in playing the hand. We'll talk about scoring in a moment.

What I found interesting is that LDB doesn't seem to address this specific set of facts and circumstances. L22 says the auction ends when all four players have passed. The auction period ends on a pass out when all four hands have been returned to the board. Arguably, the auction period hasn't ended since the error was discovered AS the hands were being returned to the board. L21 allows for changing a call until the end of the auction period, but not if the caller is the offender. Yet L17D seems to allow for the auction to be reopened if a call has been made using cards picked up from a wrong board. I believe the fourth pass takes away the ability for E to change her call using the correct cards.

Was NS damaged? No. At all but one other table, EW were in 4♠ but the contract failed three times. Awarding an artificial adjusted score under L12C.2.(a) of 60% to NS would reduce their total match points by 1.8. Poor EW had a below 40% game, but ignoring the implications of that additional adjustment, they received a lower award than if I had scored the board as A-. However, I could still make a quarter-board PP and get them back to below where the table result landed them. There would be no change in the rankings regardless of how the adjustments might be handed out.

I look forward to your comments.

[Pig Trader]

The Auction Period has not ended under Law 22B, so Law 17D applies and East gets to change their call, etc. It's difficult to see that all the cards could have been returned to the board before the problem would have been spotted as East would surely discover 13 cards already in the board.

Barrie

[pran]

Law 17D1 said:

A call is cancelled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

This refers to any, i.e. the first call made by that player on these cards, so any question on whether the auction period has ended is immaterial.

Law 17D2 said:

After looking at the correct hand the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call.

So East picks up his correct cards, looks at them and makes his new call. But as South had already called over the first call made by East the Director must award an artificial adjusted score (Ave+ to NS and Ave- to EW) unless both East and South repeat their first passes.

Law 86D may come into consideration in teams play if NOS has an expected score better than Ave+ based on the result at the other table.)

End of story.

[schulken]

pran, on 2014-August-24, 12:41, said:

This refers to any, i.e. the first Call made by that player on these Cards, so any question on whether the auction period has ended is immaterial.


So East picks up his correct cards, looks at them and makes his new call. But as South had already called over the first call made by East The Director must award an artificial adjusted score (A+ to NS and A- to EW) unless both East and South repeat their first passes.

End of story.

I don't know why the auction period would be immaterial. Suppose that offender returns the cards to the wrong board, the round ends and they pass the boards to the next table. Or make it even more intriguing - they pass the boards to the bye-stand, so now it is two rounds later before the error is detected. I can't see reopening the auction at either of those points.

[pran]

schulken, on 2014-August-24, 12:46, said:

I don't know why the auction period would be immaterial. Suppose that offender returns the cards to the wrong board, the round ends and they pass the boards to the next table. Or make it even more intriguing - they pass the boards to the bye-stand, so now it is two rounds later before the error is detected. I can't see reopening the auction at either of those points.

That will be a separate offence.

[blackshoe]

---

Quote

Law 17D1: A call is canceled if it is made by a player on cards that he has picked up from a wrong board.

East's pass is cancelled.

Quote

Law 17D2: After looking at the correct hand, the offender calls again and the auction continues normally from that point. If offender’s LHO has called over the canceled call, the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score when offender’s substituted call differs from his canceled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the canceled call.

South had called over East's now cancelled pass, and East's new call will differ from the cancelled call (if it doesn't, the ruling is trivial and is the one OP made). So "the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score". That would be average plus to NS and average minus to EW.

Quote

Law 17D4: A procedural penalty (Law 90) may be assessed in addition to rectifications under D2 and D3 above.

I might give East a PP(Warning), but I wouldn't give one in MPs or IMPs unless East is known to make a habit of pulling his cards from the wrong board and has been warned before.

Quote

Law 17D3: If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards, the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score when offender’s call differs from his original canceled call.

This applies when EW (in this case) have not yet played the board from which East drew the wrong cards. If they've already played it, then this law is irrelevant.

When you award A+ to a pair whose average MP score on the other boards they play is higher than 60%, they get their average score (ACBLScore does this automatically). In the ACBL, the pair who gets A- gets the compliment (100%-the average plus score) of the A+ score. Again, ACBLScore takes care of this automatically.

The question of damage is irrelevant - the TD is instructed to award an artificial adjusted score, so he does so, damage or no damage.

PPs are awarded to penalize violations of procedure. It is never appropriate to award a PP to get a pair's score to where you think it ought to be.

Ranking of the field is not relevant to rulings. Do not consider it at all. You are concerned only with the table at which the irregularity occurred.

[gordontd]

It seems to me that this is one law in need of revising in line with the trend towards trying to make boards playable after infractions as far as possible.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-August-24, 15:00, said:

It seems to me that this is one law in need of revising in line with the trend towards trying to make boards playable after infractions as far as possible.

And in this, and similar situations, you might allow East to have his bid again, but I don't think you can do much if the auction has continued. If South had opened 1NT, for example, and it had gone all pass, then East might cunningly substitute a pass for his original pass on the wrong cards, and then double 1NT on his 21-count. That feels wrong.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-August-24, 15:23, said:

And in this, and similar situations, you might allow East to have his bid again, but I don't think you can do much if the auction has continued. If South had opened 1NT, for example, and it had gone all pass, then East might cunningly substitute a pass for his original pass on the wrong cards, and then double 1NT on his 21-count. That feels wrong.

And that is why

Law 17D3 said:

If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs* from his original cancelled call.

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-August-25, 00:51, said:

If the offender subsequently repeats his call on the board from which he mistakenly drew his cards the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s call differs* from his original cancelled call.

Here, East originally passed (on the wrong cards) and now substitutes a pass (on the right cards), and I think that the "may" means that, if South opens 1NT, in that situation the TD should judge that the board cannot be played normally. But he would have to spot the trap pass to make this judgement.

[pran]

lamford, on 2014-August-25, 04:03, said:

Here, the defender originally passed (on the wrong cards) and now substitutes a pass (on the right cards), and I think that the "may" means that in that situation the TD should judge that the board cannot be played normally. But he would have to spot the trap pass to make this judgement.

I dont really see why?

If South (dealer) has a genuine 1NT opening hand and the auction has gone 1NT - PASS - PASS - PASS, and East now discovers that he has the cards from a different deal, then Law 17 requires him to pick up the correct cards, look at them and substitute a call for his first (now cancelled) call.

If his new call is anything else than PASS then the board is cancelled and artificial adjusted scores awarded right awway.

If he passes then "normal" play is possible regardless of what kind of a hand East now has, nothing would have prohibited him from passing (on speculation) with even a very strong hand absent any irregularity.

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-August-25, 04:28, said:

I dont really see why?

If South (dealer) has a genuine 1NT opening hand and the auction has gone 1NT - PASS - PASS - PASS, and East now discovers that he has the cards from a different deal, then Law 17 requires him to pick up the correct cards, look at them and substitute a call for his first (now cancelled) call.

If his new call is anything else than PASS then the board is cancelled and artificial adjusted scores awarded right awway.

If he passes then "normal" play is possible regardless of what kind of a hand East now has, nothing would have prohibited him from passing (on speculation) with even a very strong hand absent any irregularity.

No, we are talking about the auction going Pass-Pass-Pass*-1NT (with the asterisked pass on the wrong cards being replaced by a trap pass on the correct cards). Under the current Laws, the TD awards an artificial adjusted score, but I think some are arguing that if the replaced call was the same the auction should continue. That allows East to substitute a trap pass and then double on the way out, which cannot be right.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-August-25, 04:28, said:

I dont really see why?

If South (dealer) has a genuine 1NT opening hand and the auction has gone 1NT - PASS - PASS - PASS, and East now discovers that he has the cards from a different deal, then Law 17 requires him to pick up the correct cards, look at them and substitute a call for his first (now cancelled) call.

If his new call is anything else than PASS then the board is cancelled and artificial adjusted scores awarded right awway.

If he passes then "normal" play is possible regardless of what kind of a hand East now has, nothing would have prohibited him from passing (on speculation) with even a very strong hand absent any irregularity.

lamford, on 2014-August-25, 04:33, said:

No, we are talking about the auction going Pass-Pass-Pass*-1NT (with the asterisked pass on the wrong cards being replaced by a trap pass on the correct cards). Under the current Laws, the TD awards an artificial adjusted score, but I think some are arguing that if the replaced call was the same the auction should continue. That allows East to substitute a trap pass and then double on the way out, which cannot be right.

Under the current laws the Director may allow that board to be played normally, but if East then doubles for a big bonus I think the Director may use:

Law 12A1 said:

The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent.

since he could not foresee what would happen when he let the auction continue.